
^/7 



F 417 
.C5 U5 
Copy 1 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 



[\,.y -C^~«>, ,»^:f^^i^^^OMMITTEE ON PRIVATE LaND ClAIMS, 

House of Representatives, 

Thursday, June 2, 1910. 
The committee met at 10.30 a. m., Hon. C-yrus Durey in the chair. 
Mr. Durey. I believe Mr. Bartholdt wants to be heard on the bill 
H. R. 17888. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BARTHOLDT, A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI. 

Mr. Bartholdt. At the beginning of this session of Congress, Mr. 
Chairman and gentlemen, I made a brief statement in relation to this 
bill, and in order to refresh your memory in regard to it I will briefly 
repeat the facts. One Jacques Clamorgan was an officer of the 
Spanish navy while the Territory of Louisiana was still a Spanish 
possession. Instead of cash he received land in payment of the serv- 
ices he rendered to that Government. When the treaty of Paris was 
concluded, which transferred all that territory to the United States, 
this private ownership was guaranteed, as I understand, so that Mr. 
Clamorgan' s land should have been inviolate. In the course of the 
years, however, it seems that squatters settled upon his lands, and 
that one tract after the other was taken from him. Now, the point 
is that there is no question about this land having been conveyed to 
him by the Spanish Crown. That is one fact. The other fact is that 
his heirs are not now in possession of one foot of that land. 

Mr. Smith. How much was it? 

Mr. Bartholdt. Oh, there are several tracts, three or four large 
tracts, comprising thousands of acres of land. 

Mr. Smith. You do not know about how many acres ? 

Mr. Bartholdt. I do not know how many, but it is all contained 
in this petition which I should like to submit to the committee. The 
other fact is that he is not now, nor are his heirs, in possession of a 
single foot of that land, though there are no records of any sale on 
his part or conveyance on his part to anyone of this land. 

In 1824, when quite a number of these claimants to lands under the 
Spanish treaty were given a right to establish their ownership, their 
right to possession in the courts, an act was passed by Congress to 
that effect, and at a night session of the House of Representatives, as 
I understand, after 12 o'clock, a rider was put on that bill barring 
Clamorgan and his heirs forever from establishing their rights in the 
courts. The facts are, as the attorney of the heirs of Mr. Clamorgan 
writes me, that a number of interested parties in St. Louis who had 

46275—10 



'^« 



2 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAnV'^ 

, an interest in those lands came to Washington for the purpose of 
inducing some one to put that rider on at night, and it was put on and 
the bill was so passed. Now, my bill simply provides for the repeal 
of that rider, so that the heirs may have the right to go to court to 
establish their rights, if they have an}-. 

Mr. Carter. That rider referred only to Clamorgan and his heirs? 

Mr. Bartholdt. Only to Clamorgan and his heirs. 

Mr. Smith. What act was that ? 

Mr. Bartholdt. 1824. The act authorized claimants to Spanish 
lands to go into courts for the purpose of establishing their property 
rights, but the amendment says that Clamorgan and his heirs shall be 
barred from going into court for that purpose. 

Mr. Miller. Have you looked at the record to find out whether 
there is any reason wlw that amendment was put on i 

Mr. Bartholdt. I have looked it uj), and I can not find any dis- 
cussion about it; it was simply put on and railroaded through in the 
wee hours of the morning. 

Here is a petition, ]\Ir. Chairman and gentlemen, which fully sets 
forth the facts. Of course it is too long to read, but I should like Mr. 
Rhodes, a former Member of Congress and a former member of this 
committee, who, when the matter was up in a previous Congress in a 
different form, took a great deal of interest in this case, to make a 
statement to you regarding the facts. 

STATEMENT OF MR. M. E. RHODES, OF POTOSI, MO. 

Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
had the honor, during the Fifty-ninth Congress, to serve as a member 
of this committee, but of the present membership I recognize ver}^ 
few faces this morning. 

I appear here at the request of Mr. Alexander Gray, of the city of 
St. Louis, the attorney in fact of the Clamorgan heirs, who reside in 
that part of Missouri. When a member of this committee, gentle- 
men, I took an interest in this claim for the reason that I then lived, 
as I now do, in southeast Missouri, which is in a part of the country 
in which some of these grants were located. Because of that fact, I 
interested myself to the extent that I made considerable inquiry into 
this matter, having been assigned to a subcommittee, the duties of 
which were especially to inquire into the Clamorgan case. That 
subcommittee consisted of five members, of which Judge Smyser, of 
Ohio, was then the chairman. We spent a good deal of time investi- 
gating this matter. As a result of that investigation there were two 
reports submitted to the full committee. The committee report is 
under date of February 15, 1907, and is entitled "Claims of the heirs 
of Jacques Clamorgan." 

Mr. Miller. Can you give us the (k>cument number ? 

Mr. Rhodes. I believe I have an extra copy, which I will file with 
the committee, if I may be permitted to file a copy of this report. 

Mr. DuREY. Is this the report submitted by Mr. Smyser 'I 

Mr. Rhodes. This report contains both the majority and minority 
reports, namely, the report filed by Judge Smyser, as representing 
the majority of the subcommittee, and the report by myself. Judge 
Wallace, of Arkansas, joining me in this minority report. 

JUN 18 lyio 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES GLAMORGAN. 3 

Mr. Bartholdt. Of course the bill then under consideration was 
to confer jurisdiction upon the Coiu't of Claims to hear the claims of 
\}\e heirs of Jacques Clamorjj;an, but the present bill is entireh^ 
oitTerent . 

Mr. Rhodes. I will soon get to the point where I can state my 
mclerstanding of the pending bill. I always have and now recognize 
that the Clamorgans have a substantial equity in these claims. 
There would appear, however, to be a difference of opinion as to 
the best method by which these rights ought to be determined. 
You will observe that Judge Smyser, in representing the views of 
the majorit}' of the subcommittee, which views were accepted by 
the full committee, took the ground that because of the great lapse 
of time whicli had intervened betw^een the granting of those claims 
by the Spanish Government and the present day — the statute of 
limitations having run against them in the State of Missouri, and also 
the federal statutes barring them, and especially the act referred to 
by Doctor Bartholdt — it would simply be a waste of time and unneces- 
sary" effort on the part of the Congress of the United States to under- 
take to adjust these matters at this late day. For instance, the 
majority report says that these people have slept upon their rights; 
cases are cited from the supreme court of the State of Missouri and 
from the United States courts in which the rio-hts of these people, 
to a certain extent, w^ere then determined. Hence the committee 
was of the opinion it would be useless at this time to undertake to 
dig into those old matters. 

Now, gentlemen, I recognize that is a very natural feeling for a 
man to have about a proposition which is entirely abstract to him, 
and it w^as in that sense that this matter appealed to these gentlemen. 
But I live in the State of Missouri, and Judge Wallace lives in the 
State of Arkansas, near where these lands are located. I had never 
heard of the case before that time and had no interest in it at all, 
except I wanted to see what there was in the case. After investiga- 
tion I thought I discovered an equity, a substantial right, a right of 
which the heirs of Clamorgan had been deprived. You will observe 
that in my report I simply state it ought never to be too late to do 
the right thing by these heirs. The fact of the matter is, as has been 
correctly stated by Doctor Bartholdt, that Jacques Clamorgan was 
entitled to certain lands from his Government at the time this par- 
ticular territory was ceded by Spain to France and in turn ceded by 
France to the United States by the treatj^ of 1803. I have a copy of 
the treaty of Paris with me, but it is unnecessary to undertake to 
discuss in detail any portion of that treaty. Suffice it to say that 
the rights of Clamorgan w^ere recognized in the treaty of Paris along 
with the rights of others who had substantial interests in the public 
lands at the time the United States acquired this territory. In other 
words, Glamorgan had an equity in these lands, and when the United 
States paid France $15,000,000 for the territory of course nobody 
understood that the private property of Jacques Clamorgan, or the 
private property of anybody else, was ceded by the French Govern- 
ment to the United States; because these equities were vested in 
those people at that time. Hence the United States Government 
never acc[uired any title in the Clamorgan lands. 

Mr. Miller. Do you know whether the land grants have been spe- 
cifically located; that is, have the boundaries been fixed at all? 



4 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 

Mr. Rhodes. They have. And the American state papers show 
that, of which I have copies here, althouj^h I find I have not the 
main paper in the case. 

Mr. Miller. Can you tell whether the commission appointed under 
the act of Congress, I think, of 1824, to determine the rights of 
chiimants to Spanish hinds, ever investigated this case? 

Mr. Rhodes. I do not know anything al)out that report. 

Mr. Miller. Does that apply to this Louisiana purchase f. It 
did to Florida, but I do not know that it applied to Louisiana. 

Mr. Rhodes. I do not know. But if you will pardon me, I d sire 
that you get the point I was endeavoring to make, and that is this, 
that "this is an equitable proposition now, because at that time the 
United States Government acquired no title to the private property 
of Clamorgan or of anybody else. However, after the United States 
had acquired t lie Louisiana territory much of this land — the Clamorgan 
land — was settled by different people, who ])erfected their titles under 
the general homestead laws of the ITnited States and under the laws 
of our State. Of course the Clamorgans have long since been barred 
by the statutes of the State of Missouri and the statutes of the United 
States. The Bartholdt bill, as I understand it, seeks to remove that 
limitation so far as the Federal Government is concerned, but I have 
always had a little different idea about adjusting these claims on 
account of the inability of the United States to say to the State of 
Missouri how titles are' to be perfected or owners divested of titles 
and occupants ousted of possession, and all those things. M}' idea 
would be that the Government should pay the Clamorgans a fair 
cash consideration for their property. But the pending bill will at 
least, gentlemen, put the United States right so far as its attitude 
toward these unfortunate people is concerned and is a step in the 
right direction. But even so, they would yet have the State of 
Missouri to deal with, which would leave them in almost as bad a 
condition as they now are. 

I am here on other business and did not come here for this purpose 
exclusively; I could not have afforded to do so, but at the request 
of Mr. Bartholdt I consented to appear before the committee this 
morning. As I understand it, Mr. Gray is employed in the office 
of a railroad company in St. Louis and is a poor man, but was induced 
to take up this case because of the faith he had in the justice of their 
cause. Because of my belief that they have a substantial equity 
I was moved to make the effort I made when a member of this body. 

Mr. Miller. Do you know who the heirs are ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Yes; I know a good many of them; some of them go 
by the name of Morgan, having dropped the prefix ''Cla," and live 
in the city of St. Louis. One lives in New York City and another, 
Mrs. Mary B. Smith, lives in the city of Boston. 

Mr. Miller. They do not live in that part of the State, though ? 

Mr. Rhodes. No; not exactly. 

Mr. Smith. Do you know how much of this land there is ? 

Mr. Rhodes. I counted it up; I think about 60,000 arpens. 

Mr. Carter. How much is an arpent ? 

Mr. Rhodes. A fraction less than an acre. That would be less than 
60,000 acres. 

Mr. Smith. Did the Government issue patents to other peoi)le for 
this same land ? 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMOKGAN. 5 

Mr. Rhodes. For some they did, and some of it they even confirmed 
to Glamorgan. But the titles to many of those grants were not con- 
firmed, as is evidenced by copies of the American state papers. I 
have some of them here. For instance, there was the New Madrid 
grant, the Little Prairie grant, the Cedar Islands grant, the Meremec 
grant, and many others, to which the title was never confirmed. In 
this connection I desire to call special attention to reference to the 
Meremec grant in the report filed by Judge Wallace and myself. 

If, gentlemen, in your judgment, this matter should be referred to 
a subcommittee for consideration, I desire to call the attention of 
those whose duty it may be to consider it the copy of the report I have 
filed this morning. As I say, at the time this committee reported 
adversely upon the proposition, they simply dealt with the abstract 
proposition; while the minority report seeks to inquire into the equity 
of the claims. 

Mr. Carter. There liave never been anv trials of these cases, have 
there? 

Mr. Rhodes. Well, there was a determination of tlie titles in the 
supreme court of Missouri to some of these lands which were decided 
adversely to the Clamorgans. Of course that simply involved the 
question of possession and the right to perfect the title under the laws 
of the State. 

Mr. Carter. There has never been a trial as to the fundamental 
rights ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Never as far as I know, at least not since 1824. 

Mr. Carter. Could they have gone into court before 1824 ? It 
seems the act of 1824 gives certain persons the right to go into court 
but barred these people. 

Air. Rhodes. I will say these people could not have gotten mto a 
federal court except by way of the courts of Missouri, and they did 
get into the federal court by way of the Missouri court, but even so 
they only got there upon the record in that particular case which did 
not touch the merits of their claims and on which the Supreme Court 
did not pass. 

Mr. Carter. They have never been in court for the trial of their 
fundamental rights ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Never. The Bartholdt bill, at this late day, seeks 
to remove the barrier so far as tlie Federal Government is concerned, 
and I say is a step in the right direction. 

Mr. Miller. What relief would it give you to remove that barrier ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Well, I must say that the relief we would get would 
simply be the removal of the federal statute of limitations which 
runs against these people specifically. But you will remember I 
said a while ago I have always entertained a different view of the 
method of settlement and believe that substantial equity can only 
be dealt out through an act to compensate these people in dollars 
and cents from the public treasury. 

Mr. jSIiller. This does not give you the right to go to the Court 
of Claims ( 

Mr. Rhodes. Well, even so, then we would have the laws of Mis- 
souri as a barrier against the Glamorgan heirs in their efforts to per- 
fect title under the laws of our State. Yet I am willing the claim 
be referred to the Court of Claims by any sort of bill Congress sees 
fit to pass. 



6 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 

Mr. jSIiller. Well, we could not change the statute of limitations 
in your State ? 

Mr. Rhodes. No, sir; this bill does not seek to do that; it only 
seeks to remove the barrier as far as the United States Government 
is concerned. 

Mr. Miller. I was wondering how this w^as going to help you. 

Mr. Rhodes. Just to that extent. I say, the fullest and com- 
pletest means by which these people could be dealt with would be 
-simply to recognize the substantial equity they have and pay them 
for it, just as the Government of the United States has done in a 
thousand cases. For instance, I have here a copy of a report known 
as the report on the bill for the relief of the Mission of St. James, in 
the State of Washington. That was a Catholic institution; that had 
title to certain lands prior to the admission of the territory w^hich 
the Government took away fi'om them. In 1893 Congress saw fit to 
simply pay the institution for the land that had been taken away 
from them. (See Private Land Claims Committee report, Dec. 12, 
1892.) 

. Mr. Miller. Is it your opinion the United States opened up this 
land for settlement, and they took it under the homestead laws? 

Mr. Rhodes. Largely so, and under all the different acts known 
to the country at that time by which title could be perfected. But 
the United States, in acquiring the Louisiana territoiy from France, 
took the lands subject to the title of private property owners; Cla- 
morgan had these lands, he had these titles and the Government never 
acquired them; therefore, the Government allowed people to perfect 
title to land that the United States never owmed, because France 
never owned it; Spain had parted with the title to this land prior to 
the time it was ceded to France and prior to the Louisiana purchase. 

Mr. Miller. What does the treaty say in respect to that private 
ownership ? 

Mr. Rhodes. The treaty of Paris simpl}^ says in substance that 
the French Government passed title to all of its property save and 
except private property owned by the citizens of the territory who 
had perfected their title under the law? of the Spanish and French 
Governments. 

Mr. Miller. Does that treaty state that the right and title of 
those who have an interest in those lands shall remain the same as 
though the transfer had not been made ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Yes; simply recites in broad and sweeping terms that 
the title to all this territory is ceded by France to the United States, 
except the title to land that had been perfected by private citizens. 

Mr. Miller. What was in the treaty by which Spain sold these 
same lands to France ? 

Mr. Rhodes. The same stipulation. I'll give the exact language 
of the treaty upon this proposition before I close. 

Mr. Miller. None of these lands, as far as you know, have been 
lost to the Glamorgan heirs, or Clamorgan himself, by reason of a 
private arrangement between individuals ? 

Mr. Rhodes. No. He had this great area of land in that wild 
country, and the United States just simply considered it public land 
and treated it as such. I suppose the truth is the Government sold it 
out at 12^ cents an acre, or a dollar and a quarter an acre, at different 
times, and in other ways allowed people to prove uj) under the general 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAX. 7 

homestead laws. I am certain that is true; in fact, all of that was 
brought out in a Missouri case reported in 12th Missouri, at page 238, 
and the case of Clamorgan against somebody in the 101st United 
States Reports, page 822. 

Mr. Miller. This Clamorgan was a Frenchman, was he not? 

Mr. Rhodes. He was a Spanish subject. 

Mr. Newcomb. He was a Scotchman. '^ 

Mr. Rhodes. The gentleman is right. The liistorv of the case 
shows that he was a Scotchman, I believe. 

Jacques Clamorgan was a Spanish subject to whom, prior to the 
year 1796, was granted various tracts of land in tlie upper Louisiana 
Territory by the Spanish Government. He died in St. Louis, Mo., iri 
the year 1814, leaving all his property by will to his four natural 
children — St. Eutrope, Apoline, Cyprian, and Maximin Clamorgan^ — as 
shown by the records of the probate court of the city of St. Louis and 
earh^ Missouri court decisions. In fact the history of the Clamorgan 
land claims constitutes an essential part of the early histor}^ of 
Missouri, as shown bv the case of Landes et al. v. Perkins (12 Mo., 
239), in the case of Isaac Landes v. Brandt (10 How., U. S., 348), 
and in many reports of United States land commissioners. 

The following are the more important of these grants: The St. 
Charles grant, dated March 3, 1797; the new Madrid grant dated 
August 9, 1796; the Meramec grant, containing 8,000 arpens, dated 
September 20, 1796; the Cedar Island grant, containing 44,800 arpens 
dated March 25, 1800; the Little Prairie grant, containing 40 arpens; 
the exact date of this grant I am unable to give, but it is referred to 
in American State Papers, volume 2, page 727 under certificate No. 
1278 dated Xovember 13, 1811 ; and many other small grants in the 
vicinity of St. Louis varying in area from 7 to 800 arpens. These 
smaller grants are all mentioned in volumes 2 to 8, American State 
Papers, Public Lands Records, Washington, D. C. 

The Clamorgans base tlieir claim to these lands on the ground that 
Jacc[ues Clamorgan rendered service to the Spanish Government, 
which can be proven, in furnishing men, money, and property, and 
otherwise aiding in planting colonies in the Louisiana Territory. 
This contention is borne out b}^ the recognition of the Government 
by its agents in correspondence and the many duly authenticated 
documents that passed between them and Clamorgan, frecjuent 
references to the same being submitted in the petition now on file 
with the rest of the papers in the case. It is further contended by 
the Clamorgans that theii- j^roperty rights were fully protected and 
guaranteed under article 3 of the treaty of Paris, dated April 30, 1803. 
The following language is copied verbatim from the treaty: 

The inhabitants of the ceded territory will be incorporated into the Union of the 
States, and admitted as soon as possible conformably to the requirements of the Federal 
Constitution, to enjoy all the rights, advantages, and immunities of the citizens of 
the United States; and during this time they will be upheld and protected in the 
enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess. 

It must be remembered the Federal Government was a party to 
this treat}^ ; and those to whom lands had been granted and who had 
acquired private property and property rights were no doubt, by 
the very language of the treat}' itself, caused to look upon it as a 
promise of perfect safety and in absolute confidence. It should 
also be remembered in this connection that while the United States 



8 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 

Government paid France $15,000,000 for the Louisiana Territory, 
yet she did not pay one cent for the private property owned by 
Glamorgan or any other person. It is true the propert}^ rights of 
Glamorgan were not specifically mentioned" in the treaty of Paris, 
but his rights were guaranteed and, as he thought, protected along 
with those of others under the broad and sweeping language of the 
treaty. 

Reference might also be made with equal propriety to the treaty 
of San Ildefonso, of October 1, 1800, in which France agreed to 
uphold and protect the property rights of all citizens of the territory 
thereby ceded to her by 'Spain. The treaty of 1800 was simply a 
retrocession of the territory by Spain back to France. However, 
during the thirty-eight years of Spanish dominion, great progress had 
been made in the way of planting colonies and building cities and 
towns. Many obligations had been entered into between the 
Crown and citizens, such as Glamorgan, and it was but a proper and 
equitable recognition of those rights and obligations on the part of 
both the Spanish and French Governments in the treaties m this 
reservation of the property rights of citizens. After the acquisition 
of the Louisiana Territory by the United States, a new order of 
thino;s was established. The Spanish law of prescription was fu'st 
applied by the Federal Government in the settlement of land titles 
in the territory, and was in force until 1816, at which time the com- 
mon law was adopted. In 1818 the statute of limitation was enacted. 
It therefore became difficult for a person seized of large land interests 
to perfect title because of the frequent changes in the law. In fact, 
all such citizens were in danger of losing, and many did lose, their 
inchoate titles. Yet the United States had guaranteed the protec- 
tion of the citizen in the enjoyment of his property. 

Under the Spanish law of prescription a system of land grabbing 
sprang up among the people, and whicli was all the more intensified 
by the enactment of the statute of limitations in 1818. With this 
general statement of the situation, we ought to be prepared to ask 
the question, Has the Federal Government kept its* promise with 
Jacques Glamorgan and his legal representatives ? If it has, of course 
this bill should not pass. If it has not, the bill should pass and thus 
settle a long drawn out controversy; one that has at various times 
occupied the attention of every branch of the Federal Government 
for a century. It should never be too late for our Government to do 
right by its citizens. Jacques Glamorgan was truly a j^ioneer, a 
pathfinder to a higher civilization. 

Now, gentlemen, I am not going to take any more of your time. 
I thank you for your attention. I understand that whatever you 
gentlemen decide to do would not be the result of anything I might 
say this morning, but my belief is that if you will take up this matter 
in earnest, 3^ou will report this bill favorably. 

Mr. Garter. You have gone into this case pretty thoroughly, and 
your opinion is the State of Missouri is in no wise responsible in this 
matter, antl that whatever error has been committed 

Mr. Rhodes. Was committed by the United States. 

Mr. Garter (continuing). Was j^ermitted to occur by the Federal 
Government 'i 

Mr. Rhodes. The United wStates committed it. 



CLAIM OF HEIES OF JACQUES CLAMOEGAN. 9 

Mr. Carter. And that the United States Government should 
make good ? 

Mr. Rhodes. That is my position. 

Mr. Carter. And if the Court of Claims, or to whatever court this 
matter may be submitted, should find a verdict in favor of these 
people then it would be uj) to the Government to make proper 
compensation ? 

Mr. Rhodes. It would be up to Congress to make good. I say 
the United States can not make good in land, because the public 
domain has been exhausted; the United States can not make good 
as far as restoring title in Missouri is concerned, because of the laws 
of Missouri. That is my idea and my belief. I thank you. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY HON. RICHARD BARTHOLDT. 

Mr. Bartholdt. I would like to say just another word. If it is true, 
as probably you lawyers vnW say, that this bill would afford no relief 
to these heirs — - — • 

Mr. Rhodes. No complete relief. 

Mr. Bartholdt. No complete relief — in other words, the bill does 
not authorize them to go into the Court of Claims, and even if they 
would go into the courts of Missouri these titles that have been 
acquired by limitation in Missouri would be held valid by any court; 
so if the committee should come to the conclusion that there is some 
other way of righting a wrong and affording relief in a case of this 
kind, where injustice has been done to those people, I would be very 
glad if you will report the bill in any other form you see fit to put it. 

Mr. Miller. Suppose we passed this bill, what would the heirs of 
Glamorgan do; what status would the}' have? I do not see what 
they could do that would be of any advantage to tlieiiL 

Mr. Bartholdt. I hoped the repeal of that section would throw 
open the courts to them. 

Mr. Miller. If these were public lands there wcndd be no difti-- 
culty, but as I take it the lands have been transferred by conveyances 
for many years. 

Mr. Bartholdt. If you will read this petition you will find it has 
been done in several cases, in several of those grants where there was 
error on the part of the Government. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned.) 



CLAIMS OF THE HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMOBGAN. 

Committee ox Private Land Claims, 

Friday, Frbrvari/ L5, 1907. 

The committee this day met, Hou. George \V. Smith in the chair. 

The Chairman. Subcommittee No. 3, I believe, has a report to make in the case 
of the heirs of Jacques Clamorgan. 

Mr. Smyser. I do not know that I can do any better than to read the report of the 
majority of the subcommittee: i 

"We, the undersigned members of subcommittee No. 3, to whom was referred the 
bill (H. R.t 23588) conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, try, and 
determine Ithe land claims of the heirs of Jacques Clamorgan, deceased, having had 



10 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAX, 



the same under consideration, beg to submit the following majority report with the 
recommendation that the bill do not pass. 

"Your committee is constrained to reach this conclusion for the following reasons: 

"(]) It has serious doubts whether the subject-matter of the bill is proper to be 
referred to the Court of Claims; 

"(2) It has serious doubts as to the substance of the claim made by the petitioners; 

"(3) If the claimants Rave a claim or claims of merit they have a clear legal remedy 
open to them for the assertion, maintenance, and establishment of their claims; and 

"(4) It would be establishing a dangerous precedent. 

"(5) That the claimants have not shown affirmatively to the committee that they 
have exhausted all their remedies or rights to the land known as the Merramec grant 
or any part of it. 

''The conclusions reached are deduced from the facts, as follows: Jacques Olamorgan 
was a Spanish subject to whom, prior to the year 1796, was granted various grants of 
lands from the Spanish Government. It nowhere appears that his title to these grants 
ripened and became vested, and when Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory to France 
the rights of Clamorgan were, in the language of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, 'inchoate,' and in the treaty of cession from Spain to France no guaranty of 
Clamorgan's rights was specifically mentioned. The same is true of the cession by 
France of the Louisiana Territory to the United States, and it is gleaned from the 
A^oluminous petition submitted to the committee that descendants of Jacques Clamor- 
gan haye asserted claim to these various tracts of land, and many claims have been 
adjudicated, botli in the courts of Missouri and in the federal courts. These grants 
have been under consideration in the supreme court of Missouri and the Supreme 
[Court of the United States. Generally, the findings of the courts were adverse to the 
iclaimants, but in two instances they had favorable decision. 

"It is quite apparent that to but a single grant can claim of title now be asserted, and 
that is known as the Meremec grant. It is also apparent that this grant has been taken 
up under the land laws in various ways and is now occupied and in possession of per- 
sons claiming to be bona fide settlers and owners, and if the claimants have any light 
or title to this grant, or any part of it, their right or title can be established in an action 
of ejectment. It would be obviously wrong for ('Ongress to undertake to dispossess 
isuch persons by an act of Congress if redress can be afforded through the courts. 

"The Government has been particularly lenient in respect to these lands. 

"Believing, therefore, that while the claim of the petitioneis is vague, indefinite, 
and shadowy, and if they have a meiitorious claim it can be asserted through the 
courts, we are constrained to report adversely upon said bill. 

"M. L. Smyser. 
'Chas. N. Brumm. 
"Thos. a. Smith." 

I may say, Mr. Chairman, that those are the views of the majority of the subcom- 
mittee. I do not know that I care to say anything more. 

Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before reading the minority report 1 
beg leave to explain briefly our position, in order that there be no misunderstanding 
on the part of the committee with respect to our purpose and the reason for presenting 
the minority re])ort. 

Now, on the main facts we are agreed with our colleagues. That is to say, we are 
agreed that the courts of the country, both state and federal, have passed upon many 
of these land grants, invohdng the title to the property claimed by the Clamorgans, 
and in a majority of instances the cases were decided adversely to claimants, but we 
are of the opinion there is one grant on which the courts have never passed, and that 
is the Merramec grant, and it is that grant to which Judge Smyser makes reference in 
his report. 

For the reason we have not been able to find that the courts have passed upon the 
Merramec grant, as they have passed upon the other grants, we beg leave to offer a 
substitute bill for the pending bill and assign the reasons therefor in our minority 
report. We believe the courts have not passed upon the Merramec grant. For this 
reason and for the further reason that my colleague, Judge Wallace, and 1 both live 
in parts of the country in which many of these old Spanish grants are located, and 
as it can not be harmful to anyone and could not be a reflection upon the judiciary, 
we think it would be well to adopt the minority report and substitute for the bill. I 
will read the minority report, which Judge Wallace joins me in presenting: 

"We, the undersigned members of your subcommittee No. 3, to whom was referred 
the bill (H. R. 23588) conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, try, 
and determine the land claims of the heirs of Jacques Clamorgan, deceased, have had 
same under consideration. 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN, 11 

"We beg to submit the following report and respectfully ask that the same be con- 
sidered the minority report of your subcommittee. 

' ' The bill seeks to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, try, and deter- 
mine the claims of the heirs of the late Jacques Clamorgan in respect to the land claims 
granted the said Clamorgan by the Government of Spain and alleged to have been 
secured to him by the Treaty of Paris, dated April 30, 1803. 

"We find, first, this bill seeks to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, 
try, and determine the title to the lands in question. 

"It does not appear by the act creating the Coui't of Claims that it was the intention 
of Congress to vest in this court such power. 

' ' Second . We find Jacques Clamorgan undertook to render (and certainly did render) 
certain services to the Spanish Government and for these services received certain 
grants of land in the States of Missom-i and Arkansas." 

I will say here these people have filed with the committee a very voluminous peti- 
tion — one that would require a great deal of time to go through carefully.' 

"It is contended by the petitioners that the Treaty of Paris recognizes the rights of 
the said Clamorgan, therefore binds the United States. We fail to find any specific 
recognition of the land claims of Clamorgan in the Treaty of Paris. 

"We do find, however, in Article II of the Treaty, a general reservation of all private 
property in the cession of the Louisiana Territory." ' 

Mr. Gilbert. Is there any controversy in the subcommittee over that proposition? 

Mr. Rhodes. No, sir. That point was not discussed in the subcommittee. Mr. 
Smyser says there is no controversy on that point. I wish to say, however, it is on 
this provision of the Treaty of Paris we ground our contention. 

"This, we believe, is sufficient to bind the United States Government with respect 
to the land claims of <_"lamorgan, if the grants to the said Clamorgan had been defined 
and the title thereto confirmed by the Spanish Government and recognized by the 
French Government prior to April 30, 1803. 

"From a study tif the case of Landes et al. v. Parkins, in the 12th Missouri, page 238, 
decided in 1848 or 1849; the case of Isaac Landes v. Brant, in the 10th Howard, U. S., 
page 348; the case of Glenn et al. ti. The United States, in the 13th Howard, U. S., 
page 250; and the case of Clamorgan v. The United States, in the 101st U. S. Rept., 
page 822, in which the title to certain of the lands claimed by Clamorgan and his heirs 
have been determined, there is a recognition throughout by the Government of the 
Clamorgan grants, except the New Madrid and St. Charles grants." 

I will say here that the St. Charles and New Madrid grants were never recognized 
by the United States, because Clamorgan failed to fulfill the conditions of his contract 
with Spain. 

"Third. We find in the various court decisions above quoted that the title to all the 
Clamorgan grants has been determined in the courts, both State and Federal, except 
to the Meremec grant." 

I wish to say here this is within 50 miles of where I live. 

"This is a tract of land in the State of Missouri including 8,000 arpens and situated on 
the Meremec River. 

"The Department of the Interior, through the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office, in a letter dated January 4, 1906, states that the Meremec grant was, on Feb- 
ruary 24, 1874 

(This was seventy-five years after these grants were first recognized.) 
"recommended for confirmation by the recorder of land titles in the State of Missouri 
and confirmed by the United States Land Office. It is further stated by the com- 
missioner that Hon. J. H. McGowan, Member of Congress, was requested to introduce 
a substitute for H. R. 2613, P^orty-fifth Congress, second session, in the year 1879, 
having for its object the confirmation of the Meremec grant. The files of the House 
fail to show that such a bill was introduced in Congress, but H. R. 2613 was intro- 
duced and referred to this committee. 

"For the reason that the courts, as far as we have been able to ascertain, have not 
passed upon the Meremec grant, and for the further reason, the legal representatives 
of Clamorgan are barred by the statute of limitations, under the laws of Missouri, we 
recommend that the following bill be introduced in the House as a substitute for 
H. R. 23588, and, when referred to this committee, that the chairman he authorized 
to refer it to the Court of ( "laims for consideration under the terms of the Bowman Act. 

"M. E. Rhodes. 
"R. M. Wallace." 



12 CLAIM OF HEIES OF JACQUES GLAMORGAN. 

This is the substitute i)ill which we offer: 

"A BILL For the relief of the heirs and legal representatives of Jacques Glamorgan, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That eight thousand arpents of land, situate in the State of Mis- 
souri on the River Meramec, and known as the Mereniec grant, being a concession from 
the Spanish Government to Jacques Glamorgan, dated September twentieth, se\on- 
teen hundred and ninety-six, be, and ihe same is hereby, confirmed to the heirs and 
legal representatives of Jacques Clamorgan, saving and reserving, however, to all 
adverse claimants the right to assert the validity of their claims in a court or courts 
of competent jurisdiction eithgr of the State of Missouri or of the United States. 

"Sec. 2. That if it shall be found that any tract or tracts confirmed as aforesaid, or 
any part thereof, had been previously located by any person or persons under any law 
of the United States, or had been surveyed and sold by the United States, this act shall 
confer no title to such lands in opposition to the rights acquired by such location or 
purchase; hut the individual or individuals whose claim or claims are hereby con- 
firmed shall be permitted to locate an equal amount of public land that may be subject 
to entry or purchase: Provided, That such location shall conform to the legal division 
and subdivisions, and shall not interfere with the rights of other persons. 

Mr. Gilbert. As to these people who have been in actual adverse possession of the 
property for fifty years and have paid the taxes, etc., how are you going to get rid of 
them? 

Mr. Rhodes. Under the first section of the bill their remedy is in the courts of our 
State. 

Mr. Cu.sHMAN. It would seem to me that you place the cart before the horse, as it 
were. That is, it throws upon the people who are in actual adverse possession for a 
great many years the burden of going in and establishing their claims, whereas it would 
seem from what little I have heard of this discussion that that burden, if any, should 
be thrown upon the heirs of Jacques Clamorgan to go in and establish their rights? 

Mr. Rhodes. Not at all, for the reason they are in possession, and if there be heirs 
of Clamorgan, who claim to have rights and equities in the property, it would devolve 
upon them to go into court and establish their rights. 

Mr. CusHMAN. What is the specific objection to permitting the heirs of Jacques 
Clamorgan going into the courts on their own behalf and instituting proceedings 
against these settlers who are now in open and notorious possession? What is the 
objection to that form of procedure? 

Mr. Rhodes. None on earth, except that the door of opportunity is closed against 
them forever by virtue of the statute of limitation, which would undoubtedly bar 
them all. 

Mr. CusHMAN. Is not that one of the penalties for sleeping on their rights? 

Mr. Rhodes. Yes; but Mr. Justice Miller, in the 101st United States Report, says, 
in the determination of one of these cases, the courts have been very lenient, owing 
to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 

Mr. Smyser. It seems to me that as far as your substitute bill ought to go would be 
to remove the statute of limitation and let these people go into court . 

Mr. Rhodes. I doubt if we can do that. 

Mr. Gilbert. It looks to me like this is a judicial question instead of a legislative 
question. 

Mr. Rhodes. You are quite right, and I hope we may not be misunder.-itood in our 
position. Vv'e are against the pending bill, for the reason it seeks to confer jurisdiction 
upon the Court of Claims to hear, try, and determine the title to this property, and we 
do not believe this court is clothed with sufiicient authority. 

Mr. Gilbert. WTiat do you say as to conferring authority by piecemeal on the Court 
of Claims — jurisdiction in special instances? 

Mr. Rhodes. We are against that and for that reason do not favor the bill. The 
point I wi-^h to make is that we only ask that this case be referred to the Court of 
Claims for inve.-^tigation and information. We are not seeking to confer jurisdiction 
upon the Court of Claim? to hear, try, and determine the title to this property, as 
seems to be the purpose of the pending bill. I think it is clearly apparent this com- 
mittee should not undertake to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims, but we 
would call upon the Court of Claims to give this committee information with respect 
to the grant, upon which the courts do not seem to have passed. 

Mr. CusHMAN. The bill says title "is hereby confirmed to the heirs and legal rep- 
resentatives of Jacques Clamorgan." 

Mr. Rhodes. We do not propose to present this bill to the House in this form. We 
are simply getting the facts involved in this controversy in definite form before this 
committee, and ask the committee to refer those facts in this form to the country 



CLAIM OF HEIBS OF JACQUES GLAMORGAN. 13 

Claims, that we may see what they have to .say on the subject. 1 should not under- 
take to put that bill through the House of Representatives with the information I 
have at present upon the subject, because it -is a A'oluminous subject and involves 
many intricate and technical legal questions affecting the rights accruing to Clamorgan 
and his legal representatives under the treaty of Paris, various acts of Congress, and 
numerous court decisions. 

Mr. CusHMAN. Iconfess that I do not understand what you mean. Is this a sub- 
stitute bill which is offered in lieu of the other bill? 

Mr. Rhodes. It is. We make it clear in the language of the substitute that we are 
only seeking to refer this bill to the Court of Claims for consideration. We are not 
seeking to put this bill through Congress. We are only referring this bill to the Court 
of Claims. The .original bill, however, does seek to confer jurisdiction upon the 
Court of Claims to hear, try, and determine the title, and we are against this bill. We 
want to get our substitute bill before the Court of Claims for their opinion with respect 
to this one claim, the Meramec grant. We would not undertake for a moment to recom- 
mend that anything be done, directly or indirectly, by the political branch of the 
Government involving the title to large tracts of land on which the courts have passed, 
because I take it the acts of the judiciary should be final, and I for one am willing 
to recognize, and do recognize their acts, both state and federal. 

Mr. Smith, of Texas. What interest is it claimed that the Government has in this 
property in order that it can grant any relief at all? Is not this a controversy between 
private parties? 

Mr. Smyser. Yes, sir. With all due respect to our friends, 1 think this is just the 
trouble. There are some poor people who claim to be descendants of Jacques Gla- 
morgan, and they are not able to make the investigation here in the Land Office that 
they want to make to satisfy themseh-es as to whether or not they have any rights or 
title to any of this land, and therefore they want Congress to go on and either refer 
this matter to the Court of Claims or by some action relieve them. 
Mr. Smith, of Texas. WTio possesses the land now? 

Mr. Smyser. As to this particular grant I can answer that question best by reading 
. the petition. In speaking of this Meremec grant the petition says: 

"On February 13, 1879, this office transmitted — that is, the Land Office^through 
the Department to Hon. J. H. ^IcGowan, House of Representatives, a draft of a pro- 
posed bill to confirm this and other claims, said draft being proposed as a substitute 
for H. R. 2613, entitled 'A bill to confirm certain private land claims in the State of 
Missouri.' This grant enjoys the extraordinary distinction, so far as I am aware, of 
being the only one that the Government has expressed a wish to confirm. The terri- 
-torj'' covered by this grant is already taken possession of by adverse claimants, and has 
been built up, and it is likely that, unless Congress gives instructions to the Govern- 
ment to see that this property be handed over to the possession of the Clamorgans 
without having to start ejectment suits, which your petitioner hopes Congress will da 
in justice to the Clamorgan heirs." 
Mr. Bennet. Is that their own petition? 
Mr. Smyser. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Gilbert. What equity is there aside from the technical legal question, in 
behalf of these heirs, who have been asleep for one hundred years? 

Mr. Smyser. I confess that after the study and consideration I have given to this 
matter I have not been able to discover any. 

Mr. Gilbert. \\'hat is the reason that the lapse itself does not constitute a bar, aside 
from the statute of limitation? 
Mr. Smyser. I think it does. 

Mr. Rhodes. I want to say, in response to the suggestion of Judge Gilbert, that in 
1845 James K. Polk signed a patent to some of the Clamorgan lands. You say that 
these people have been asleep on their rights for one hundred years, but after these 
people had been asleep on their rights fifty years the President of the United States 
saw fit to put his name to a patent. 

Mr. Gilbert. That is too long ago. Without knowing anything of the merits of 
the case — I am just looking around to get the facts — it occurs to me that the heii's 
have been slumbering a long time, and assuming everything that they say to be true, 
still, between those people who have taken adverse possession and have paid their 
good money for the property and have paid the taxes and cultivated and developed 
the property, and these heirs, it would be conceding their contention that the fault 
was on the side of the present occupants. 

Mr. PtHODES. In response to that statement, if I had reason to believe that every- 
thing my colleague has assumed was true, and if I could turn to the court decisions 
and find that the courts of my State and my country had passed upon the title to 
these properties, then I would be the last man on earth to undertake to refer this 
matter to the Court of Claims; but for the reason we fail to find the courts of the country 



14 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES GLAMORGAN. 

have passed upon the Meramec grant we are seeking further information through the 
Court of Claims. The courts have passed upon the title to the land embraced in other 
grants, perhaps not more than two. 

Mr. GiLnERT. I thought it was stated both in the majority and minority reports 
that the land in th? Meremec grant had beeii taken up and was now in the adverse 
possession of th? other people. 

Mr. Smyser. Here is what they say: 

■'There is still another grant of 8,000 arpens on the Meremec which has not been con- 
firmed. In volume 2, page 567, Jacques Clamorgan appeared and claimed 8,000 arpens 
of land on the River Meremec, being a concession from Zenon Trudeau, dated the 
20th of September, 1796, for which a survey was certified on the 28th of February, 1806. 
I find also a reference to this claim in a letter from the honorable Commissioner of 
Lands to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior, under date of January 4, 1906, 
which states that the claim of 8,000 arpens situated on the Meremec River, in the 
State of Missouri, was, on February 24, 1874, recommended for confirmation by the 
recorder of land titles in the State of Missouri, acting as commissioner under the act 
of June 22, 1860 (12 Stat. L., 85). This office approved said commendation." 

Mr. Rhodes. I can see no reason why we can not refer the matter to the Court of 
Claims for information. My colleague. Judge Wallace, and myself are not asking 
the Congress of the United States to enact this bill into law. In fact. I should be 
reluctant to do so until I had thoroughly satisfied myself that these people had the 
rights and equities as set out in this petition and could not b? enforced in any 
other way. 

Mr. Wallace. That was my object. 

Mr. Rhodes. I would not confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, try, 
and determine the title to the property. It is not within the scope and purpose of the 
law creating the Court of Claims that it be clothed with such power, and I thoroughly 
agree with Judge Gilbert that we should not undertake to piecemeal out authority or 
jurisdiction upon this court for such a purpose. If our substitute bill has been improp- 
erly drawn, we would very willingly agree to its being properly amended. Our inten- 
tion was only to get the matter before the Court of Claims for investigation and have 
the court refer it back with the result of their findings. 
Mr. Smith, of Texas. For what purpose? 

Mr. Rhodes. For the purpose of ascertaining the status of this one particular grant. 
Mr. Smith, of Texas. With a view to further legislation? 

Mr. Rhodes. I would not necessarily say that. I would say, as a member of this 
committee, with a view to satisfying myself with respect to the contention raised in 
this petition. 

Mr. Smith, of Texas. It seems to me we should not put a burden on the Court of 
Claims without some definite object in view. 
Mr. Wallace. The definite object is to inform the committee. 
Mr. Rhodes. As a lawyer, from my knowledge of this case, I would not undertake 
to go through it thoroughly and inform myself as to the details in less than six months' 
time. This committee has not the time. 
Mr. Smyser. What would you do if you were a lawyer representing these claimants? 
Mr. Rhodes. They are poor people, without means, and they would have to employ 
a lawyer on a contingent fee, and I am certain I would not undertake a case of this kind. 
Mr. Smyser. Is not the most of the information at hand at the Land Office, and 
does not the department say that while it does not feel satisfied to detail a clerk to 
do this work that the books are open? 

'Mr. Rhodes. What would you say with reference to this proposition: Let the 
chairman of the committee write a letter to the Commissioner of the Land Office or 
to the Secretary of the Interior and call for information with respect to this Meremec 
grant? 

Mr. Gilbert. I should be very glad to have all the information we can get. From 
the views of both the minority and majority, it seems to me that it would be a work of 
supererogation upon the Court of Claims — the burden of investigating the details of 
a transaction — when it is conceded upon all sides that this property is now in the 
adverse possession of settlers, and has been for years. 

Mr. Brumm. Supposing this matter was submitted to the Court of Claims and the 
Court of Claims should report, after a thorough investigation, that the Clamorgan 
heirs did have a good title, then what would you recommend to be done, if they got 
the most favorable report they could get? 

Mr. Rhodes. In that event I should suggest favorable legislation by the Congress of 
the United States. 
Mr. Brumm. To do what; to enact favorable legislation? 

Mr. Rhodes. I have no remedy in mind other than that named in our substitute. 
That would be the only specific remedy I could think of at this time. I have not 
gone further into the case. 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 15 

Mr. Brumm. If there is anything we can do by which we can facilitate the develop- 
ment of facts which would enable these people to ascertain all the facts that they want 
to know, I am in favor of doing anything that can be done, and if there is any way by 
which you can reach that end I will join you, but to put upon a court the burden of 
hunting, as it were, for a needle in a haystack or for throwing a dragnet for something 
that may possibly exist, I think we are going too far and would establish a bad prec- 
edent. 

Mr. Rhodes. I do say if I should be satisfied that these people have equities in these 
properties, then I should feel it my duty as a Member of the Congress of the United 
States, on which people have in the past found it necessary to rely, to go the limit. 
I am not prepared to say specifically what the remedy should be, but if the court con- 
vinced me that these people had rights I should not hesitate to enforce them. 

(The majority report of subcommittee No. 3, submitted by Mr. Smyser, was adopted.) 

Thereupon the committee adjourned. 



Petition to the honorable the House of Representatives of the United States on behalf of 
the heirs of the Infe Jacques Clamorgan in respect to the land claims granted to him by 
the Government of Spain and secured by the treaty of Paris for the cession of Louisiana 
of April SO, ISOS, by Alexander Gray, attorney in fact of the said heirs. 

Humbly showeth; That your petitioner, in his effort to get at the present status of 
the claims made by the Government of Spain to Jacques Clamorgan, while that power 
exercised political and actual sovereignty in what is now known as the Province of 
Upper Louisiana, addressed a communication, dated January the 17th of this present 
year, to the Hon. Richard Bartholdt, a Member of your honorable body, requesting 
his kindly offices with the Go^•ernment of the United States with the view of obtain- 
ing particular and positive information as to the number and present status of the grants 
made by Spain to the said Glamorgan, especial reference being made in that com- 
munication as to the number of the claims confirmed by the Government, and the 
names of the parties to whom they were confirmed. 

In a short time that honorable gentleman forwarded to me his replies, one from the 
honorable the Secretary of the Interior, bearing date January 25th, and another from 
that same honorable gentleman, dated February 3rd, this latter also inclosing a letter 
addressed to the honorable Secretary of the Interior from the honorable the Commis- 
sioner of the General Land Office in rejily to my request for said information. 

These communications gave me the information that "the exhibits of private land 
claims in Missouri, on file here, make reference to about 20 claims in the name of 
Jacques Clamorgan, and it is submitted that it would involve considerable labor on • 
the part of this office to look up the history of each claim and make out the desired list 
for Mr. Gray. It is most respectfully suggested that the records of this office are open 
to the inspection of Mr. Gray or anyone he may designate and that this (General Land) 
office will lend assistance in locating the records, as it is thought that the time of a 
clerk of this office should not be spared from other pressing work to make out this 
list." 

The petitioner very readily admits that such a duty necessarily involves a consid- 
erable amount of labor on the part of these departments of the Government, yet, with 
all due respect to the considerations submitted by both these honorable gentlemen, 
the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, let me 
humbly ask. Have the Clamorgan heirs no rights, under the treaty of Paris for the 
cession of Louisiana of April 30, 1803, which the Government in any way ought to 
consider and respect? 

According to the communication referred to, by their own showing it is distinctly 
stated that the exhibits on file in Washington make reference to about 20 claims in 
the name of Jacques Clamorgan. 

During the period of the Spanish sovereignty, in what was then known as the Prov- 
ince of Upper Louisiana, Jacques Clamorgan not only received all these various grants 
of land, which are shown on the files in Washington, at the hands of the authorities 
under the King of Spain; but, in fact, was also secure in his legal abiding possession 
of these lands so designated in these concessions, and was in full enjoyment of a per- 
fect title and actual possession according to the customs and usages of the Government 
conveying them at that time. 

In his capacity as an officer of the Spanish Crown, it was his duty to his king to 
uphold and maintain, at his own personal cost, a goodly number of armed men, and to 
undertake expeditions, which cost him considerable personal expense, and he had 
also to perform other duties, which were detailed for his attention and performance, 



16 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 

at the behest and coinmaiid "of his immediate superiors under the Spanish ("rown. 
Not only was he an officer under the Government, but he was also under the pay of 
the Crown, and, as such, was fully recognized by his Government. 

His salary was, according to the records, ten thousand dollars per annum — out of 
which, howcA-er, he had to provide the means and the money outlay for carrying out 
his duties, which the records also state to have been considerable. \Miile he, as a 
crown officer, had to bear the burden of his immediate expenses in all his undertak- 
ings, it also appears from the records that, when he asked for the payment of the regu- 
lar installments of his salary, the crown treasury was generally em|)ty or very low, 
and it was with this difficulty he had principally to contend. Failing to receive the 
regular installments of his salary at the proper time, he, after waiting for the con- 
venient season for the Government to pay him in cash what it had faithfully stipu- 
lated to do, asked for the payment of his salary in lands, instead of money. This was 
in fact his only recourse, and it was granted by the authorities without any demur; 
in fact the Government very willingly and also very readily granted his request, and 
paid him his salary in land grants. This accounts for the frequency and the extent 
of his grants of lands. The Government paid him in lands instead of cash. This is 
also clear from the evidence of the records. The titles, therefore, to these various 
land grants, with which his name is now associated, and which have always been so 
very unsavory in the eyes of the United States officials who were called upon, in the 
performance of their duties, to examine and pass upon the validity of his titles, did 
not trouble themselves, it would appear from the records, to take this fact of his 
varied and eminent services to the Spanish Crown into their consideration at all. In 
the eyes of these officers of the United States these grants were merely concessions 
from the Spanish Crown, and as such concessions or grants carry with them the idea 
of something got for nothing, they came to the conclusion that they had a perfect right 
to refuse Clamorgau any confirmation of them on any consideration. This conclusion 
on their part was simply not only erroneous but mischievous, and accounts in a great 
measure for the unfavorable, if not positively partial and hostile, sentiment enter- 
tained by the United States officials, as well as judges, in considering these ( 'lamorgan 
claims. 

In contrast with these considerations, let us examine the records again, and find what 
were the impressions and opinions which the officers of the Government of the King of 
Spain held in reference to Clamorgan. Referring to the letters and correspondence 
of Baron Carondelet, and Governor Trudeau, and others, these gentlemen, as well 
as others, have left on record that the services and sacrifices made by Clamorgan to 
the Spanish Crown were very considerable, and Baron Carondelet affirms that Cla- 
morgan deserves all the consideration and recompense that it is in the power of the 
Crown of Spain to give him. Wlien, therefore, the Spanish Government gave Cla- 
morgau a title to a piece of land, it was a perfect title, so far as they could make it so, 
because it was their full and cordial recognition, so far as the power of the authorities 
of the Spanish Crown went, of the eminent services and unflinching energy, as well 
as a commendation for the self-sacrificing spirit with which Clamorgan served his Gov- 
ernment. These letters are also on record, and can be called in evidence, and show 
a marked contrast with the censorious spirit which characterized the officials of the 
United States. 

To put the matter very plain, these grants were the payments Spain made to Cla- 
morgan for special and faithful services rendered to the State, and, as such, were 
recognized by that Government. 

Looking, then, at the grants made by Spain in their real and true light to Clamorgan 
as their pay or reward for his personal service to the State, and not as mere grants 
given for nothing, we find the titles given him by Spain are as perfect as they could 
be made at the time, and therefore, as such, are entitled to the consideration and 
confirmation of the United States Government. 

The American State Papers contain many references to these claims, as well as 
petitions to Congress for their confirmation. These papers also abound with com- 
plaints and petitions to Congress representing the arbitrary manner in which the 
commissioners, as well as the federal courts which have jurisdiction under the several 
acts of Congress, in which the settlers complain bitterly of the harsh manner in 
which these officers and tribunals attack their Spanish titles, as well as the dictatorial 
and arrogant spirit in which these titles are handled. 

I will cite only one instance out of many which might be quoted from the American 
State Papers showing the spirit. It is contained in these papers, and is No. 646, 
Twentieth Congress, first session, and is a petition of the undersigned citizens of 
Missouri, respectfully showing to Congress that the United States officials, in exam- 
ining the proofs of their ownership to their various lands, by their titles granted by 
the King of Spain, or his governors and representatives, are exceedingly dictatorial 



CLAIM. OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAX. 17 

in their conduct and manner toward them ; also stating, in a most marked and emphatic 
manner, that under the rulings which they practice only about three claims out of 
every hundred presented by them have so far passed their scrutiny and been recom- 
mended for confirmation. These petitioners also show that the commissioners of the 
King of Spain, in their proclamation, use the following unequivocal language, to wit: 

"That all concessions or property of any kind soever, given by the governors of 
these provinces, be confirmed, though it had not been done by His Majesty." 

These petitioners also show that this proclamation was published on the 18th day 
of May, 1903, at New Orleans, after the date of the treaty of cession to the United 
States, in presence of the French commissioners, and have never been objected to 
by either the French or the American Governments; that the letter to M. D'Abadne 
is- to be found in the Appendix to the United States Land Laws, and the proclamation 
of Salcedo and Case Calvo is on the files of the Department of State at Washington City. 

Besides these, other references are given fully and particularly in these volumes of 
theAmerican State Papers, while there are many details of these grants also given 
in"White's Compilations, pages 34, 35, 38, 39, and 41, where also particular reference 
is made to the services of Jacques Clamorgan to the Government of Spain. These 
are public documents and exhibit in a marked degree the true state of affairs at that 
time, and are therefore surely entitled to some respect. 

It is a fact established beyond question that Jacques Clamorgan had not only a 
perfect title to all his grants, but had also complete, absolute, and perfect possession 
of all the lands designated in these grants under the Spanish Crown; and had not the 
change in sovereignty from Spain to the United States taken place, both Clamorgan 
and his legal heirs would have been, to all human reasonings, in possession of his grants 
to the present time, ^^^len a province or a country changes its political masters, is 
it not a fact, recognized the world over, that the rights of private property in all 
civilized countries are always fully and legally recognized and protected by the new 
sovereignty? The same is true in this particular instance. Spain did not abrogate 
the titles or grants she had made to Clamorgan. She simply transferred them to the 
new political power, under the treaty of Paris of April 30, 1803. 

Under a former treaty Spain bound France to confirm all the grants she had made in 
the Louisiana Territory, and France, in like manner, bound the United States to ratify 
and confirm these same grants Spain had made, and the United States gave its solemn 
l)ledge and assurance that this compact would be fully and satisfactorily carried out. 
The LTnited States paid fifteen million dollars for the territory outside of these grants, 
but not one cent for any ground in the province that was segregated or set apart and 
contained or included in these grants. Hence these grants, as such, were not, in the 
best sense of that term, Linited States territory. I\Iore so, Spain and France and 
France and the United States made a solemn covenant or treaty, that, while the 
United States was to exercise complete and sole political power in the new territory, 
France on behalf of Spain, and France and the LTnited States, very distinctly provided 
in and by the treaty of cession of April 30, 1803, that the parties now in possession of the 
land and the territory by the grants of Spain were to continue undisturbed in full 
possession of their lands and property, and the United States undertook to ratify and 
confirm these settlers in the lands and property which they held under the former 
Government of Spain. This treaty is, therefore, the guarantee and the Magna Charta 
of the United States Government to the settlers on this territory for the purpose of 
confirmation, protection, and security. It is, moreover, the only supreme law of the 
land by which these claims can be, in justice to these settlers as well as the Govern- 
ment, finally and satisfactorily settled. 

It is the purpose of this petition not so much to give the areas of these several grants 
nor their extent, that information being fully and only in the hands of the Government, 
they being all so well known that it is only necessary to name the grant and the action 
taken by the Government towards a settlement. 

In looking into the numerous acts passed by Congress, the petitioner finds that a 
claimant to land had to make personal application to the commissioners appointed by 
the Government under the different statutes or by his fully authenticated agent. 
According to these acts none but the legal claimant or his legal agent could thus appear 
before the commissioners and get the claim confirmed. Not only had this to be done, 
but the commissioners were very jealous, it would appear from the records, lest any- 
one should illegally and unlawfully appear before them and make claim to any land 
granted by the Government of Spain to which he was not the legal as well as the lawful 
grantee. 

The petitioner finds that while Congress was very anxious and also very jealous 
lest any but the genuine and legal owTiers of land under this treaty should get con- 
firmation of their grants, the rulings of the Interior Department and (he General Land 

46275— -10 2 



18 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN, 

Office were very different, they being loose and irregular. According to their own 
showing, in a letter dated Washington, D. C, November 30, 1900, addressed by the 
honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office to the honorable the Secretary of 
the Interior, which is forwarded with this [jetition and marked No. 1, on page 6 of 
said letter is the statement that "This office held at the time that it mattered not who 
received and located the certificate, as the location and subsequent patents would, 
in accordance with the rule governing in such cases, issue in the name of the con- 
firmee, and would accordingly enure to the Ijenefit of the proper parties, whose iden- 
tity should be determined by the proper judicial tribunal." 

According to this extraordinary ruling, which, it is needkss to say. is quite at 
variance with and very antagonistic, as a matter of fact, to the spirit as well as the 
letter of the act of Congress, that it introduced a new mode of procedure in any action 
taken by a genuine claimant to get his title confirmed by the Government. By this 
new and certainly novel ruling the old safeguard of personal application of the claim- 
ant was completely demolished, and anyone was at perf( ct libf-rty to make application 
for confirmation of any claim desired, as the grounds upon which he made application 
were not questioned by the Government, it would seem, in any case. This ruling 
opened the doors wide for that unprincipled and nefarious dealing in other people's 
property which has since borne such an abundant harvest of evil fruit that the Gov- 
ernment itself has be(>n defrauded out of large areas of land in almost every State. 
By this ruling, according to its own statement, anyone could apply for confirmation 
of a claim and have it confirmed, which was actually done in a good many instances 
with the claims of Glamorgan. Not only was this the case, but when the attention of 
the Government was drawn to the fact that they had ccjn firmed a claim belonging and 
granted to Glamorgan to parties not Clamorgans, the reply of the Govei'nment inva- 
riably was to the effect that the Government had confirmed this claim to the jjarties 
making such application for confirmation, and that, confirmation having been made, 
the duty of the Government in this particular instance was completed. If confirma- 
tion had been made to the wrong parties, not Clamorgans, that question must be 
decided before a competent tribunal. That the Government had confirmed a grant 
to parties having no legitimate interest in the grant seemed not to disturb the officials 
of the Government. The only reply to the heirs was, " You must fight for yoiu- inter- 
ests thi'ough the courts." The treaty of Paris is very clear that the Government 
would protect the property of the settlers. It is an established fact that litigation 
is very costly, and the Clamorgans, with all their property gone, were not in any posi- 
tion to go into the courts and fight the parti( s who were made rich through their grants 
having been confirmed by the Government, without consideration of their interests, 
to others, not Clamorgans, and having no genuine title thereto. 

A very remarkable case, showing the mischievous result of the operation of this 
unconstitutional ruling, is very apparent in the Cedar Island claim, about which there 
has been considerable correspondence between the Ciovernment and your petitioner. 
The following is the history of this grant as briefly as it can be made. 

It appears from the records that one named Isaac T. Green agreed at his own cost 
to get this concession confirmed by the Government, and, when confirmation was 
obtained, he agreed to pay Hemy and Cyprian Glamorgan the sum of six thousand 
dollars for all their right, title, and interest in said lands, and, until that money was 
paid over to them, they were to hold the lands as security. This deed from Green to 
the Clamorgans was dated February 16, 1852, and is marked "No. 2 " of the documents 
accompanying this petition. 

Jacques Glamorgan left a will dated the 1st of October, 1814, which was probated 
on the 7th of November of that same year, naming as his universal heirs to all his 
property, his four natural children, namely: St. Eutrope, Cyprian M., and Maximin 
and Apauline. St. Eutrope is §aid to have died in the fall of 1824, and Maximin is 
reported to have died in the following spring or summer, both having died intestate, 
unmarried, and without issue. Cyprian M. died, leaving a will dated February 22 
and probated May 27, both in the year 1827, and recorded March 13, 1828, leaving all 
his interests to his sister, Apauline, in the State of Missouri. The said Apauline is 
said, according to the statement of Cyprian Glamorgan, her youngest son, to have 
married her cousin, a nephew of the said Jacques Glamorgan, after whom he was 
named. There is no official record of this marriage, however, as far as can be traced. 
Hence the conception was formed that she was an unmarried woman, and that her 
children were illegitimate. So generally was this report accepted that the legislature 
of Missoviri, at the instance of James E. Mumford, an unprincipled attorney in this 
city, for the purpose of his controlling the certificate of relocation. No. 232 (marked 
"No. 3"), containing 38, lllyV% acres of land, which the Government had granted to 
satisfy this claim, the original grant for which was 44,800 arpents, to the legal repre- 
sentatives of Regis Loisel, that the said Mumford had himself appointed by the pro- 
bate court here as administrator de bonis non of the intestate estate of Cyprian M. 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 19 

and Maximin Glamorgan, in defiance of a petition to that court of Henry Clamorgan, 
at that time living in this city — the second son of the said Apauline — and also of the 
fact Cyprian M. left a will dated, probated, and recorded as noted above. Nevertheless, 
the said Mumford had an act passed by the legislature of Missouri (see Laws Mo. 1863, 
p. 209) (marked "No. 4") for the so-called purpose of legalizing Henry and Cyprian 
Clamorgan, the then only living heirs of Jacques Clamorgan and also the only living 
legal representatives of Regis Loisel. With all his craft and ingenuity, he was defeated 
in his purpose of obtaining from the Surveyor-General Loughborough said certificate. 
A craftier, a more subtle, as well as a more influential schemer, Theophile Papin, 
obtained the prize. 

The report (marked " No. 5 "), copied from the Mis.souri Republican of that date, 
shows this gentleman's fine engineering skill. The said Apauline died, leaving a will 
dated the 11th, and probated on the 12th of May, and also recorded on the 15th of May, 
all in the year 1830, leaving all her estate to her children, Louis, Henry, Louisa, and 
Cyprian, the latter of whom was born after the execution of her will and only nine 
days before her death. Louis appears to have been married, and left; at the time of 
his death, in 1851 or 1852, two boys, named Leon and Julius, who survived their father, 
Louis, only a short time. Louisa appears, from the record, to have died an infant 
of some six or seven years of age, leaving only Henry and Cyprian as the only living 
legal heirs and representatives of Jacques Clamorgan. The powers of attorney in 
fact held by me were given to me, and signed by Cyprian Clamorgan, and by his 
children and surviving widow by his second marriage of the said Henry Clamorgan, 
and also by Louis P. (lamorgan, the eldest son of said Henry Clamorgan by his first 
marriage; also, since the death of Cyprian Clamorgan, by Mary Belle Clamorgan, 
wife of Augustus Smith, of the city of New Bedford, in the State of Massachusetts, 
said Mary Belle Clamorgan, or Smith, being the only legitimate daughter and heir 
to the interests of the said late Cyprian Clamorgan, who was born only nine days before 
the death of his mother, the said Apauline Clamorgan. James E. Mumford, as admin- 
istrator de bonis non of the presumed intestate estate of Cyprian M. Clamorgan and 
his brother Maximin, tried, in every possible way, to get possession of the relocation 
certificate No. 232, but outwitted by Theophile Papin, as already stated. He adver- 
tised said certificate and sold it twice at different dates, as shown in the settlement 
marked "No. 11" and "No. 12," but was unable to get possession thereof and deliver 
it. See inventory marked "No. 11," settlement marked "No. 12," certificate copy 
of transcript marked "No. 13," and copies of dismissal from the circuit court marked 
"No. 14" and "15," in regard to the action of Mumford. 

Theophile Papin, as already mentioned, secured the possession of said certificate 
of relocation No. 232, but on what legitimate grounds he received it from Surveyor- 
General Loughborough is easily seen, if you will please look at the signature on the 
back of that document. Papin claimed to be one of the natural heirs of Regis Loisel. 
Notwithstanding the fact that Isaac T. Green and James E. Mumford worked to get 
confirmation on behalf of Henry and Cyprian Clamorgan from the Government, James 
E. Mumford, as administrator de bonis non, presumed he was entitled to the possession 
of this certificate. Papin claimed it on behalf of himself and his coheirs as the property 
of his ancestor. Regis Loissel, ignoring the sale of the property in 1805 to Clamorgan. 
Later, however, he pretended that, Green having failed to pay the two young Cla- 
morgans the purchase price he agreed to by hi^ deed after confirmation, which is 
an establisiied fact, and by which failure on Green's part the property, by the terms 
of his own' deed, reverted back intact to the lawful possession of the Clamorgans, 
Papin claimed that the Clamorgans sued Green in the circuit court here for the pur- 
chase price of the property, and got judgment, and that the Papins brought judgment. 
(See 32 Mo., p. 285.) ' 

When, however, your petitioner, in the latter end of the year 1885, called upon Mr, 
Papin to show his authority for his possession of this certificate No. 232, he was greatly 
perplexed, as the correspondence between your petitioner and Mr. Theophile Papin, 
and his attorney, Mr. E. T. Parish, will show. This correspondence is marked "No. 
6." The Papins were large dealers in real estate in this city, and the fact that they 
. have no deed on record showing that they bought this property throws considerable 
doubt on the integrity of their statements made to your petitioner. This fact, from 
inference alone, would be that no real purchase price was paid, or the Papins, who 
were sharp and shrewd business men, would have a legal and authentic conveyance 
from the Clamorgans. 

So far as the deed given by Green is concerned, it has been shown that he never kept 
his bargain nor paid the Clamorgans any money, and yet if you refer again to the 
certificate of relocation No. 232, it will be found that Isaac T.' Green is apportioned 
one-sixth of the whole certificate, Henry Clamorgan one-third of the whole certificate, 
and that Theophile Papin and the other Papins, and others not Clamorgans, are enti- 
tled to one-half of the whole certificate. 



20 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES GLAMORGAN. 

WTiile Henry Clamorgan, as shown in the certificate, is entitled to one-sixth of the 
whole certificate, the fact remains that he o;ot nothing. The Papins, who conducted 
this transaction were too much for the easy-eoing and too trustful Henry ("lamorgan. 

Theophile Papin died some years ago, leaving about two million dollars' worth of 
property, principally real estate, and James E. Mumford died about that time, leaving 
about a quarter of the above-named amount. 

Referring again to the article copied from the Missouri Republican, dated March 
20, 1863, and marked "No. 5" of th° papers in support of this petition, th? said article 
is a report of the night session of the house of representatives of the legislature of Mis- 
souri, when the bill Mumford had framed was submitted for the action of that honorable 
body. The report is not certified by a notary, but the original copy on file at the office 
of the said newspaper is still extant, and from which your petitioner made the copy 
submitted, and which is true. It will be noticed that that report states "that one of 
the Clamorgans was in the rebel army." In refutation of that statement, your peti- 
tioner herewith attached to said copy of article, marked "No. 5" of the papers, an 
original letter, dated New Orleans, February 13, J 865, written by George H. Hanks, 
colored, 99th Regt. U. S. (\ I., and addressed to Capt. E. A. Morse, asst. quarter- 
master, and is as follows, viz: "Permit me to introduce to your favorable attention 
my friend, C. ('. Morgan, esq. (a contraction for Cyprian Clay Morgan, and which 
Cyprian sometimes used ), a resident of this city, of indisputable loyalty. Any atten- 
tion you may be pleased to favor him will be duly appreciated by, very respectfully, 
your obedient servant. (Signed) Geo. H. Hanks. Col. 99th Regt. U. S. C. I." 

Also a letter dated Washington, D. C, January 19, 1869, from United States 
Senator, the honorable C. D. Drake, bearing testimony also to the loyalty of Cyprian 
Clamorgan, during that struggle; also forwarded attached to No. 5 of the papers accom- 
panying this petition. 

These letters demonstrate the fact very clearly as to said Cyprian's domicile during 
this period, and also refute completely the statement made in the legislature on that 
occasion . 

This report shows how these Clamorgans were handled and defrauded in reference 
to their claims, which were just as well as legal and legitimate, in regard to this claim. 

Cyprian Clamorgan was a loyal Republican all through his life. 

In reference to the Baden claim, the patent for which was signed by President 
Grant on February 12, 1874, the (lamorgan heirs instituted ejection suits for the 
recovery of their property in the state circuit court here, and after fighting for twelve 
or fifteen years they got a judgment in their fsivor from the suprcire court of Missouri. 

Wlien this court rendered them this judgment, the adverse claimants offered the 
Clamorgans forty thousand dollars for the surrender to them of all their rights and 
interests in this property. It was, however, considered by their heirs that, owing 
to the stubborn and persistent efforts of these adverse claimants having kept this 
property tied for so long a period, the Clamorgans came to the conclusion to refuse 
this offer, there being about thirteen acres left for the heirs after all deductions were 
made. Immediately on this conclusion of the legitimate heirs becoming known 
to these adverse litigants, they presented a petition to the said supreme court, and, 
without much trouble, got this court to recall their verdict in favor of the Clamor- 
gans, and render judgment adverse to them in the case. This decision is marked 
" No. 7" in the papers forwarded with this jjetition. Thus this matter stands to-day. 

In further reference to this claim, your petitioner would state that, during the 
tenure of Mr. Cleveland's first administration, rour petitioner addressed a letter to 
President Cleveland on the subject of this claim. This communication was answered 
by the President, intimating in his reply to me that my letter to him had been referred 
to the Attorney-General, and that a further reply would be forwarded when that 
ofBcer decided upon what action would be taken. Not having received any further 
notice of what action the Government would take, your petitioner addressed a com- 
munication to the Attorney-General. That gentleman duly informed me the matter 
had been referred to the district attorney of the United States for the eastern district 
of Missouri, and advised me to see him. 

Your petitioner called on Mr. Bashaw, then holding that )>osition, and disco^•ered 
that this action on the part of the Attorney-General had caused considerable com- 
motion and alarm among the adverse claimants, all of whom were Democrats of very 
pronounced caste. \Mien your petitioner presented Mr. Bashaw with the letter from 
the Attorney-General he looked a good deal astonished and puzzled. 

He, however, informed me that it would be two or three months before he could 
look the matter up and make his report. After considerable delay, however, as stated 
in the letter No. 1 from the General Land Office, Mr. Bashaw's report was forwarded 
on January 9, 1889. Mr. Bashaw distinctly and repeatedly assured me that his 
report would be in favor of the Clamorgans, but I saw that the effect of the investiga- 



CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAIS:. 21 

tion was a dead letter, Mr. Bashaw himself being one of these gentlemen who believed 
that the party affiliations were the most sacred of human ties, and right or wrong he 
stood by his peers, although he misrepresented his decision to your petitioner. 

Your petitioner would now revert to the case of Landesetal. vs. Perkins (12 Mo., 151) • 
in reference to the grant of one by forty arpents, formerly known as the Little Prairie, 
and later called the Washington Avenue grant. The honorable the late Commissioner 
of the General Land Office, states in his letter to the honorable the Secretary of the 
Interior, dated November 30, 1900, marked "No. 1 " of the papers accompanying this 
petition, on page 4 of said communication, that this land "was the subject of a suit 
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Landes vs. Brandt" 
(10 Howard, 348), from which it appears that Clamorgan became divested of the land 
in 1S08. This land was also the subject of a suit decided by the supreme court of 
Missouri, in the case of Landes et al. vs. Perkins (12 Mo., 151), where a complete" 
history is given to the claim, and also of the Clamorgan family. ' ' Taking the judgment 
of the court in the supreme court of Missouri in the case of Landes et al. vs. Perkins, 
that court, in passing judgment in that case, says; "A question of importance in the 
clause is, as to the operation of the confirmation to Clamorgan, whether it conveyed 
the legal title of the lot to him or to Conner. After much deliberation, no tenable 
grounds have been perceived on which the opinion can be based that, by the con- 
firmation, the legal title of the lot became vested in Conner. * * * When Con- 
gress enacted that the death of a patentee at the date of the patent should not void 
the grant, but that it should enure to the benefit of the heirs or assignees of the pat- 
entees, it clearly expressed its sense of this question. 

"Nothing can be found in the acts of 1805 or 1807 which warrants the opinion 
that the confirmation passed the legal title of the estate confirmed to any other person 
than the claimant, or his legal representatives who filed their claims before the board 
of commissioners, as assignees under the original claimant from the Spanish Govern- 
ment. If one is a representative and he does not prefer his claims as such for con- 
firmation he is not regarded by the act. The fourth section of the act of 1805 pre- 
scribes that every person claiming lands should file his claim. The sixth section 
of the act of 1807 directs that reports of the final decisions in favor of claimants be made 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, and that a certificate shall be issued to the claimant, 
showing that lie is entitled to a patent; thus clearly evincing that, in the contem- 
plation of Congress, the legal title could only pass to the claimant." 

By this extract from the court above mentioned it is clearly shown that the state- 
ment made by the late Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the date 
already referred to, is incorrect and misleading. 

One other fact in connection with this Washington avenue property is that, while 
Clamorgan was in possession of this grant, yet that he had not the confirmation of 
this claim from the Government until November 13, 1811, and then, by the terms of 
the acts mentioned, it was not apparently in the power of even the Supreme Court of the 
United States to dispossess him. There has been a large amount of irregular and 
unconstitutional litigation in connection with these grants, arising to a great extent 
through the irregular ruling of the Interior Department, in contradistinction to the 
procedure inforced by Congress, a-^ manifested by its acts, in filing the claims of the 
settlers. It appears that this property, under pretense of Clamorgan being due some 
taxes or debt, was sold by the sheriff to John O'Fallon and Jesse D. Liudell for the 
sum of thirty-three dollars, currency, on the 27 day of July, 1826, which was easilj^ 
worth one hundred dollars. This sale shows how matters were done. Clamorgan 
died in 1814. When the patent for this property was issued by the Government on 
the 18th of June, 1845, it was given into the possession of parties that were not Cla- 
morgans, presumably under the same rulings that have worked so much damage 
and loss to many of the grants held in his name on the files at Washington City. 

This sale, at such a figure, for a property easily worth, as stated, one hundred dol- 
lars, shows how utterly reckless and with what brazen effrontery these parties acted 
in this matter. This sale is unconstitutional and unwarranted in every way. Yet, 
notwithstanding, this property stands in his name, and is in point of fact his property. 
Several years ago your petitioner offered, through a friend, the <'lamorgans title to 
the National Boatman's Bank, which has its building on this property. The senior 
attorney for the bank acknowledged to my friend that they had no legal and legiti- 
mate title to their holding, and suggested an an'angement for this purpose. It was 
thwarted, however, by the cashier, who said that Charles Green stood between the 
bank and the Clamorgans, and he gave us his warranty deed; besides he is worth over 
a million dollars. Such is the status of this claim. 

Other grants have been disposed of, and confinned by the government, of which 
your petitioner, as their representative, has not the slightest knowledge, nor can he 
obtain such information under present circumstances. 



22 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMORGAN. 

Mr. Bayard, who was Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. Cleveland's adminis- 
tration, said, in speaking of the riots at New Orleans in connection with the Italian 
trouble there years ago, that ','when the courts failed to give justice, it was competent 
and proper to appeal to the Government." 

In referring to the action of the courts, it was only recently that the President of 
the United States, in speakiftg of the decision of the federal court in Chicago in the 
case of the beef trust, was very emphatic in his disapproval of the judge's finding in 
that cause and declared that such decisions made the laws of the United States a 
farce. This proves very conclusively that even judges give erroneous and mis- 
chievous decisionB in cases brought up before them for adjudication. 

Your petitioner will now humbly draw the attention of your honorable House to 
three claims which the Government has not yet confirmed. Two of these have, 
however, been adversely decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. They 
are as follows, to wit: 

The New Madrid grant, dated August 9, 1796; 

The St. Charles gi'ant, dated March 3, 1797; and 

The Merrimac grant, dated September 20, 1796. 

The first-mentioned claim (New Madrid) was for 536,904 arpents and was decided 
against the Clamorgans at its December term, 1851. (13 Howard, 250.) 

The second mentioned is the St. Charle- grant. (See U. S. Report.^;, 822.) A C()i)y 
of this decision is marked "8," and forwarded with the other records. 

The decisions in these cases were, to a considerable extent, against, the heirs, owing, 
it was claimed, to the uncertainty as to their superficial areas. /To any who has 
taken the pains to investigate these, and other grants, one could easily realize that, 
in determining with any degree of accuracy the exact areas of these claims, according 
to the description of bounding lines designated by metes and bounds, in the grant 
itself, would, at the present day, or even at the time these cases came up for adjudi- 
cation and settlement by the courts, be a very difficult matter, the topography, of the 
lands being often entirely changed by the improvements, and other causes, in a few 
years: another reason being that, when these measurements were made and bounda- 
ries specified, there was neither that exactitude in their measurements nor that 
accuracy of description of property at that time, as to natural landmarks, metes, and 
bounds, which characterizes the careful action of the present day.\ Yet, with all 
this imcertainty, often so severely criticized by our modern courts and jurists, and 
specialists in this class of work, if these matters were considered more in the spirit 
of candor and fairness to all the parties interested, and less in that critical, cynical, 
and supercilious spirit, a conclusion would be arrived at more in harmony with fact 
and justice than has been done to a great extent in such matters. (See No. 8, copy 
of decision in St. Charles claim, enclosed with tliis petition.) 

With all due respect to the learned and very profound disquisitions of eminent 
judges before whom these cases were tried, the fact remains that the equities, the 
principles, and, in fact, the eternal verities of the case were completely ignored and 
left untouched. The decisions of the honorable courts were rendered on exceed- 
ingly partial and technical grounds and not by any means in accordance with either 
the letter or the spirit of the treaty of April 30, 1803. 

The court speaks with great fervor of the irreconcilable difference of the conjec- 
tural plats, on which the (Government is to be calculated out of land scrip worth 
over S2, 000, 000, and that '"the selection of one of these plats almost at hazard is to be 
made the foundation of the judgment, is directly opposed to the construction we have 
given to the section of the act under which the court exercises this jurisdiction." 
^Vhat does the treaty say? 

If the learned and honorable judges had as carefully and faithfully studied the 
requirements of the treaty of April 30, 1803, which is the parent and the spring of 
this act, they so very learnedly and eloquently declaim, they would doubtless have 
discovered that instead of the Government being calculated out of $2,000,000 by hav- 
ing these conjectural plats taken as the foundation for a judgment of the court, they 
were, as a matter of pure and simple fact, in reality calculating the Clamorgan heirs 
out of a very large portion of the inheritance which their ancestor, Jacques Clamorgan, 
had lawfully worked for and as lawfully earned in rendering honorable ser\aces to 
Spain, which was of intrinsic as well as of recognized value by that power. More- 
over, the great fact that these grants were segregated from the public domain and in 
actual possession at the time of cession to the United States clearly demonstrates the 
truth of the statement that these lands never did honestly and legally belong to the 
United States, and that therefore any decision to make them such was unjust as well 
as unlawful. This treaty is the great ^lagna Charta of the Spanish claimant and the 
onlv law bv which these cases can be legitimateh' considered and settled. 



CLAIM OF HEiliS OF JACQUES CLAMOKGAX. 23 

I have endeavored to show the true status of the matter in relation to the St. Charles 
grant, as I have considered it in all its bearings. The New Madrid grant was rejected 
by the Supreme Court of the United States at its December term, 1851 (13 Howard, 
250), being disposed of by that court in a similar way to that of St. Charles grant. 
The points and considerations, as well as the decisions, in both cases, by the Supreme 
Court of the United States are very one-sided and partial, and are not, in either case, 
decided according to the requirements of the treaty of April 30, 1803. 

There is still another grant of 8,000 arpents on the Merrimac which has not been 
confirmed. In volume 2, page 567, Jacques Clamorgan appeared and claimed 8,000 
arpents of land on the River Merrimac, being a concession from Zenon Trudeau, dated 
the 20th of September, 1796, for which a survey was certified on the 28th of February, 
1806. I find also a reference to this claim in a letter from the honorable Commissioner 
of Lands to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior, under the date of January 4, 
1906, which states that the claim for 8,000 arpents situated on the Merrimac River, 
in the State of Missouri, was, on February 24, 1874, recommended for confirmation by 
the recorder of land titles in the State of Missouri, acting as commissioner under the 
act of June 22, 1860 (12 Stats., 85). This office approved .'^aid commendation. On 
February 13, 1879, this office transmitted through the department to Hon. J. H. 
McGowan, House of Representatives, a draft of a proposed bill to confirm this and other 
claims, said draft being proposed as a substitute for II. R. 2613, entitled "A bill to 
confirm certain private land claims in the State of Missouri." This grant enjoys the 
extraordinary distinction, so far as I am aware, of being the only one that the Govern- 
ment has expressed a wish to confirm. The territory covered by this grant is already 
taken possession of by adverse claimants and has been built up, and it is likely that, 
Congress will give instructions to the Government to see that this property^be 
handed over to the possession of the Clamorgans, without having to start ejectment 
suits, which your petitioner hopes Congress will do in justice to the Clamorgan heirs. 

According to the Coustitufion of the United States, section 8, no bill of attainder or 
ex post facto law shall be passed. Article XIV, section 1, says: "Nor shall any State 
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny 
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

I also find, in looking into the federal statutes having reference to Spanish claims, 
that appended to, and included in the act of Congress (4 Stat. L., p. 52, May 26, 
1824), the following paragraph, copy of which I herewith forward, to wit: Chapter 173 J 
section 12. of this act provides that this act shall not apply to the claims of Jacques 
Clamorgan. The language of the act in reference to the bar of the claims of Jacques 
Clamorgan is as follows, to wit: 

"Provided, That none of the provisions of this act shall be applied to a claim of the 
representatives or assignees of Jacques Clamorgan, deceased, lying between the 
Missouri and Mississippi rivers, and covering parts of the countiesof St. Charles and 
Lincoln, in the State of Missoiu-i." Marked No. 9, forwarded with the inclosures 
accompanying this petition. 

This paragraph, incorporated into this federal statute, made under the sanction and 
the authority of the United States, provided that Clamorgan shall not get his property 
in defiance of the treaty of Paris of April 30, 1803. This clause in this act is also in 
direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution of the Ignited States, that the treaties 
entered into with other powers shall be the supreme law of the land. According to 
the text of this iniquitous statement, no crime is laid to his charge. There is nothing 
to show that he had committed treason, or any felony against the United States, and 
yet, without due process of law, about ten or fourteen years after Clamorgan had piassed 
over the bourne from which no traveller has ever returned, we find this astounding 
statement among the laws of the land. How it got there is not told nor the reason why, 
nor of what if any crime he was found to be guilty. Nothing is mentioned to throw 
any light on this wicked and infamous statement; and yet, there it stands, and has 
stood, without any question being asked to this day, for nearly sixty-two years, the 
greatest outrage ever perpetrated on an innocent, honest man. We have been told 
time and time again if we wish to get our property the only way to get it is to go into 
court. We have gone into court, and in the New Madrid and' St. Charles grants we 
have been refused confirmation. 

According to a communication dated November 30, 1900 (marked No. 1), from the 
honorable the Commissioner of Lands, Mr. Binger Hermann undertakes to show the 
honorable the Secretary of the Interior that Clamorgan was divested of his rights in 
the Washington avenue property of one arpent by forty, in 1808. If that very good 
gentleman had taken the trouble to look up the files in his own office he would have 
found that Jacques Clamorgan did not get the certification of confirmation for this tract 
until November 13, 1811. Until that time he held the lands under his Spanish title. 
He refers to a suit in court in 1808 in which the judgment went against Clamorgan; 



24 CLAIM OF HEIRS OF JACQUES CLAMOK(iAX. 

but there were so inauy irrei>;ularities in these proceedings that the verdict was allowed 
to drop. 

Then there is the Baden property, to which I have already referred, and which was 
brought recently in the federal court, and which also went against the heirs, and no 
matter what court we entered we got defeated, and the reason is not far to seek when 
we find a United States statute arrayed against the Clamorgans. This bar, by its 
language, is presumed to bar only the St. Charles claim, but notwithstanding this 
declaration this bar has been universal in its operation against any proceedings insti- 
tuted by the Clamorgans to redeem their property. 

Every man in this great and broad land wishes and enjoys the privileges, the liber- 
ties, the protection to life and property and all our belongings which is afforded under 
the laws which emanate from the Government of the United States. From every 
corner of this great Commonwealth arises the glad song of liberty and security. We 
boast of being the free-born citizens of this mighty nation. We call it the land of the 
free, and have certainly wherein to boast, for we are the children of a grand and glorious 
heritage. Truly the lines have fallen to us in pleasant places. As a nation we are 
proud of our national history. It tells the story of our prowess on land and sea. We 
have snapped asunder the fetters of the slave. We have taken up arms not to 
help, but to crush the oppressor. As a nation we are a power on the side of 
righteousness and truth and civil as well as religious liberty. We have also as 
a nation extended our borders, and are willing that other nations far away from 
our shores and people whose customs and language we are only beginning to 
learn or understand .should know not only of our might in war, but also that they 
should share and rejoice in the benign and healthful blessings of peace that we as a 
people so lavishly enjoy. Yet, amidst all this blaze and glory of national prosperity, 
from the secret recesses of the last six decades comes the dark shadow of a mighty 
wrong. Nor does it come from the foul hand of an assassin, who, pistol in hand, 
demands the all of the wayfarer. Strange as it may seem, yet nevertheless too true 
it is that the power that controls the destinies of this great people, that power struck 
that man, Jacques Clamorgan, and his memory, and his heirs, not because he was 
guilty of any crime, for there is no crime laid to his charge, and the power that struck 
him, and struck him to the death, was ime of the laws in the federal statute book of 
this mighty people. Simple in word, yet mighty in effect was that astounding para- 
graph, that mischievous enactment. It seems some evil spirit straddled this vile 
rider onto an otherwise fair and honorable measure, I honestly and fully believe, 
without either the knowledge or consent of the great majority of the honest, able men 
who were at that time the honorable Members of the House of Representatives. Yet, 
there it stands, in all the hideousness of its malignity, pointing its gaunt fingers at 
the fair structure of national greatness you have reared, and laughing that great horrid 
laugh for six long decades and defying justice in the land. 

In the name of the great God, in the name of our common humanity, in the name 
of truth and freedom and love and righteousness, let this vile statute stain the ermine 
of your statute book no longer. Let it be blotted out forever from your records. 
Surely the United States can afford to be honest and do the right with one of her own 
citizens. 

And your petitioner will ever pray. 

Very respectfully submitted. 

A. Gray, 
Atlorriei/ in fuel for the Clamorgmi heirs. 

^T. l.ovis.'Slo.. April 28, 1906. 



o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 610 287 6 # 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 610 287 6 



